Genetically Modified crops

[Frank Woolf]

Maybe the best way to start this discussion and invite comments is ask you to watch this video:

Genetically Modified crops causing world wide concern. (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/entertainment/watch/v62763535BzaxhK9)

No doubt there is some exaggeration but this is really scary. I will certainly avoid growing seeds from the US that have been genetically altered.

[Frank Woolf]

More info :

Doctors Warn Avoid Genetically Modified Food
By Jeffrey M. Smith
7-22-9

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine states,"Genetically Modified foods have not been properly tested and pose a serious health risk. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation."

Last May the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks." They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling.

AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies."

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, "I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods." Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, "Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions." World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that "children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems" related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become "the experimental animals."

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks-compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color-from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA. Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investi-gations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.


Food Designed to Produce Toxins

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt (produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis) has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic, has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room. The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India who have handled Bt cotton. In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, "Victims of itching have increased massively this year related to BT cotton farming."

American Academy of Environmental Medicine states, "Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation," in-cluding increase in cytokines, which are "associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation" -all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are "a consistent feature of all the studies." Even Monsanto's own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn. A November 2008 study by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties, GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor-a known soy allergen-and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy. Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin most probably Bt-toxin." In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days. Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in the Philippines.

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks. Monsanto's own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.


Worst Finding of All-GMOs Remain Inside Us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests. But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists' concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto's vice president.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine states, "GM foods have not been properly tested" and "pose a serious health risk." Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the "potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants" revealed "that experimental data are very scarce." The author concludes his review by asking, "Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?"

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, "The experiments simply haven't been done and we now have become the guinea pigs." He adds, "Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying."

Dr. Schubert points out, "If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop." If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood-but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their "members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health."

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets-unless it says organic or "non-GMO."

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe-by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, American Academy of Environmental Medicine's non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world's bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don't have the data to show that their products are safe.
www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html (http://www.aaemonline.org).

[Frank Woolf]

Here is another article:

The skepticisms on the safety of genetically modified (GM) food have been overwhelming, voiced by a majority of scientists and humanity throughout the world. Nevertheless, a handful of governments led by the United States have allowed biotech corporations to push GM food onto the world’s food market. As recent as June 24, 2005, EU Environment Ministers, against the wishes of the European Commission, voted to uphold the safety ban on genetically modified organism (GMO) maize after scrutinizing a report by the biotech giant, Monsanto, that demonstrated rats fed on GMO corn developed abnormalities — damage to the kidneys and changes to their blood.

Undoubtedly, animal testing on the safety of GM food is inadequate due to the short period of monitoring and observation and flawed by applying the traditional testing methods to a novel science, which opens up a whole new field of unknowns. The compelling evidence of GM food being unsafe comes from the animals themselves — preferring natural food to GM food and suffering internal injuries or succumbing to death after eating GM food.

Ironically, peer-reviewed papers on animal testing on the safety of GM food are far and few between, considering the aggressive campaigning for GM foods and products by the biotech companies in the last ten years. Both the U. S. government’s agency and U. K. government's advisory committee on novel foods and products based their decisions on safety mainly on animal data results provided by biotechnology companies. Obviously, biotech corporations with self-serving interests provided their versions of the animal test results. It appears that most research papers by biotech corporations couldn’t meet the scientific standards — to have the experiments replicated and published in peer-reviewed journals.



Animals have a natural instinct to know what’s good for them. Throughout the United States, farmers have been reporting animals rejecting GMO crops: cattle and hogs that wouldn’t eat when the GMO crops were mixed in with the ration; cattle would rather trot a longer distance to munch on the non-GMO corn than consume the nearby Round-up Ready (herbicide resistant) corn; a herd of deer mowed down natural tofu beans, ignoring the Round-up Ready variety across the road; and the raccoons raided an organic corn field, leaving Bt (induced insecticide) corn untouched down the road. If wild and domestic animals would only eat natural food and avoid various GM foods, they’re certainly sensitive enough to know the distinction between natural and unnatural — as some scientists had claimed that GM food is no different from natural food.

The most highly publicized case against the safety of GM food was the experiment on rats fed on GM potatoes. In 1995, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a highly respected British scientist, embarked on the first government-funded research project to study the health effects of genetically modified crops on animals. The rats given GM potatoes (raw and cooked) after 10 days showed significant damages — impairment of the immune system, shrinkages of brain, liver and testicle, as well as pre-cancerous cell growth in the intestines and stomach. Later, Pusztai’s colleague, Dr. Stanley Ewen of Aberdeen University Medical School reconfirmed Pusztai’s findings that were finally published in the prestigious journal, The Lancet, in 1999.

In the ‘Report for the Chardon LL Hearing: Non-suitability of genetically engineered feed for animals’ published by The Scientists for Global Responsibility in May 2002, Eva Novotny contradicted the official conclusions on the chicken and rat experiments. She pointed out three abnormalities as a result from testing Chardon LL: 1) some animals consumed GM feed did not gain weight rapidly enough; 2) some animals given GM feed displayed erratic feeding habits; and 3) mortality rate of chickens fed on GM maize doubled of those fed on non-GM maize.

The unpublished research of Calgene’s FLAVR SAVR tomato (first GM food on the U.S. market) noted some laboratory rats that were given the GM crop developed stomach lesions; and seven of the forty rats died within two weeks. In Germany, twelve cows died after digesting Syngenta's GM maize, prompting the Swiss biotech company to compensate the farmer. The recent disappearance of the once populous Monarch butterflies in North America might be related to GM crops. The Monarch butterfly larvae died from eating milkweed that had been contaminated with Bt corn pollen.

A few more papers on animal feeding studies on GM food were published, but most of them are experiments not designed to identify health effects conducted by biotech industry scientists.

In animal experiments to ensure thorough safety of GM food, four main areas of concern should be addressed for evaluation — toxic effects, allergic reactions, nutritional impacts, and antibiotic-resistant genes that play a role in the GM process. Besides the unknown long-term effects of GM food on health and environment, the restructured genetically modified DNA itself becomes unstable which enhances horizontal gene transfer and recombination — the very process for spawning new diseases and spreading antibiotic resistance that can cross species barriers.



As the only human experiment on GM food, a study at Newcastle University in 2002 sponsored by Food Standard Agency, had volunteers consume a single meal of GM soya. The genetically modified DNA was not dissolved, as scientists had claimed it would be, instead it was transferred into the intestinal bacteria, confirming the process of horizontal gene transfer. Coincidentally, since 1994 when GM food was first introduced, food borne illnesses have been dramatically on the rise in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Although the causes of those diseases remain largely unknown, the possibility that they may be linked to GM food cannot be dismissed.

The world’s unease about GM food for human consumption exists for a very good reason — GM food hasn’t been proven safe. As a novel science, GM food technology is unlike other modern technologies — it directly affects the environment, human health, and the future of our humanity. Any mishap could decimate the human race with an unknown deadly virus created from GM food. Perhaps, our sense of GM food — being unnatural and unsafe — comes from our animal instinct after all.

By Diana Lee
UniOrb (Reality Check) (http://uniorb.com (http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/animalgm.htm))

[Frank Woolf]

In case anyone is interested. Here is a documentary that shows how much of the world is already infected by Genetically Modified Crops.

The World According to Monsanto (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v8968165kYRdfmYC)

[Frank Woolf]

By Bev Bell
Daily Kos, May 17, 2010
Straight to the Source

“A new earthquake” is what peasant farmer leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) called the news that Monsanto will be donating 60,000 seed sacks (475 tons) of hybrid corn seeds and vegetable seeds, some of them treated with highly toxic pesticides. The MPP has committed to burning Monsanto’s seeds, and has called for a march to protest the corporation’s presence in Haiti on June 4, for World Environment Day.


In an open letter sent of May 14, Chavannes Jean-Baptiste, the Executive Director of MPP and the spokesperson for the National Peasant Movement of the Congress of Papay (MPNKP), called the entry of Monsanto seeds into Haiti “a very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creole seeds…, and on what is left our environment in Haiti.”[1] Haitian social movements have been vocal in their opposition to agribusiness imports of seeds and food, which undermines local production with local seed stocks. They have expressed special concern about the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

For now, without a law regulating the use of GMOs in Haiti, the Ministry of Agriculture rejected Monsanto’s offer of Roundup Ready GMO seeds. In an email exchange, a Monsanto representative assured the Ministry of Agriculture that the seeds being donated are not GMO.

Elizabeth Vancil, Monsanto’s Director of Development Initiatives, called the news that the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture approved the donation “a fabulous Easter gift” in an April email.[2] Monsanto is known for aggressively pushing seeds, especially GMO seeds, in both the global North and South, including through highly restrictive technology agreements with farmers who are not always made fully aware of what they are signing. According to interviews by this writer with representatives of Mexican small farmer organizations, they then find themselves forced to buy Monsanto seeds each year, under conditions they find onerous and at costs they sometimes cannot afford.

The hybrid corn seeds Monsanto has donated to Haiti are treated with the fungicide Maxim XO, and the calypso tomato seeds are treated with thiram.[3] Thiram belongs to a highly toxic class of chemicals called ethylene bisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs). Results of tests of EBDCs on mice and rats caused concern to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which then ordered a special review. The EPA determined that EBDC-treated plants are so dangerous to agricultural workers that they must wear special protective clothing when handling them. Pesticides containing thiram must contain a special warning label, the EPA ruled. The EPA also barred marketing of the chemicals for many home garden products, because it assumes that most gardeners do not have adequately protective clothing.[4] Monsanto’s passing mention of thiram to Ministry of Agriculture officials in an email contained no explanation of the dangers, nor any offer of special clothing or training for those who will be farming with the toxic seeds.

Haitian social movements’ concern is not just about the dangers of the chemicals and the possibility of future GMO imports. They claim that the future of Haiti depends on local production with local food for local consumption, in what is called food sovereignty. Monsanto’s arrival in Haiti, they say, is a further threat to this.

“People in the U.S. need to help us produce, not give us food and seeds. They’re ruining our chance to support ourselves,” said farmer Jonas Deronzil of a peasant cooperative in the rural region of Verrettes.[5]

Monsanto’s history has long drawn ire from environmentalists, health advocates, and small farmers, going back to its production of Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. Exposure to Agent Orange has caused cancer in an untold number of U.S. Veterans, and the Vietnamese government claims that 400,000 Vietnamese people were killed or disabled by Agent Orange, and 500,000 children were born with birth defects as a result of their exposure.[6]

Monsanto’s former motto, “Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible,” has been replaced by “Imagine.” Its web site home page claims it “help[s] farmers around the world produce more while conserving more. We help farmers grow yield sustainably so they can be successful, produce healthier foods… while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment.”[7] The corporations’ record does not support the claims.

Together with Syngenta, Dupont and Bayer, Monsanto controls more than half of the world’s seeds.[8] The company holds almost 650 seed patents, most of them for cotton, corn and soy, and almost 30% of the share of all biotech research and development. Monsanto came to own such a vast supply by buying major seed companies to stifle competition, patenting genetic modifications to plant varieties, and suing small farmers. Monsanto is also one of the leading manufacturers of GMOs.

As of 2007, Monsanto had filed 112 lawsuits against U.S. farmers for alleged technology contract violations or GMO patents, involving 372 farmers and 49 small agricultural businesses in 27 different states. From these, Monsanto has won more than $21.5 million in judgments. The multinational appears to investigate 500 farmers a year, in estimates based on Monsanto’s own documents and media reports.[9]

“Farmers have been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone else’s genetically engineered crop [or] when genetically engineered seed from a previous year’s crop has sprouted, or ‘volunteered,’ in fields planted with non-genetically engineered varieties the following year,” said Andrew Kimbrell and Joseph Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety.[10]

In Colombia, Monsanto has received upwards of $25 million from the U.S. government for providing Roundup Ultra in the anti-drug fumigation efforts of Plan Colombia. Roundup Ultra is a highly concentrated version of Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide, with additional ingredients to increase its lethality. Colombian communities and human rights organizations have charged that the herbicide has destroyed food crops, water sources and protected areas, and has led to increased incidents of birth defects and cancers.

Vía Campesina, the world’s largest confederation of farmers with member organizations in more than sixty countries, has called Monsanto one of the “principal enemies of peasant sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty for all peoples.”[11] They claim that as Monsanto and other multinationals control an ever larger share of land and agriculture, they force small farmers out of their land and jobs. They also claim that the agribusiness giants contribute to climate change and other environmental disasters, an outgrowth of industrial agriculture.[12]

The Vía Campesina coalition launched a global campaign against Monsanto last October 16, on International World Food Day, with protests, land occupations, and hunger strikes in more than twenty countries. They carried out a second global day of action against Monsanto on April 17 of this year, in honor of Earth Day.

Non-governmental organizations in the U.S. are challenging Monsanto’s practices, too. The Organic Consumers Association has spearheaded the campaign “Millions Against Monsanto,” calling on the company to stop intimidating small family farmers, stop marketing untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods to consumers, and stop using billions of dollars of U.S. taypayers' money to subsidize GMO crops.[13]

The Center for Food Safety has led a four-year legal challenge to Monsanto that has just made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. After successful litigation against Monsanto and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for illegal promotion of Roundup Ready Alfalfa, the court heard the Center for Food Safety’s case on April 27. A decision on this first-ever Supreme Court case about GMOs is now pending.[14]

“Fighting hybrid and GMO seeds is critical to save our diversity and our agriculture,” Jean-Baptiste said in an interview in February. “We have the potential to make our lands produce enough to feed the whole population and even to export certain products. The policy we need for this to happen is food sovereignty, where the county has a right to define it own agricultural policies, to grow first for the family and then for local market, to grow healthy food in a way which respects the environment and Mother Earth.”

Many thanks to Moira Birss for her assistance with research and writing.

Beverly Bell has worked with Haitian social movements for over 30 years. She is also author of the book Walking on Fire: Haitian Women's Stories of Survival and Resistance. She coordinates Other Worlds, www.otherworldsarepossible.org, which promotes social and economic alternatives. She is also associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.

1 Group email from Chavannes Jean-Baptiste, May 14, 2010.
2 Email from Elizabeth Vancil to Emmanuel Prophete, Director of Seeds at the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, and others; released by the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, date unavailable.
3 Ibid.
4 Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information Project of the Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at Davis, http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/
5 Jonas Deronzil’s comments are from an interview in April. He was not specifically discussing Monsanto.
6 MSNBC, January 23, 2004. “Study Finds Link Between Agent Orange, Cancer.” The Globe and Mail, June 12, 2008. “Last Ghost of the Vietnam War”
7 www.monsanto.com
8 La Vía Campesina, “La Vía Campesina carries out Global Day of Action against Monsanto”, Oct. 16, 2009, http://viacampesina.org/
9 Center for Food Safety, “Monsanto vs. US Farmers,” Nov. 2007.
10 Andrew Kimbrell and Joseph Mendelson, Center for Food Safety, “Monsanto vs. US Farmers,” 2005.
11 La Vía Campesina, October 16, 2009, Op. Cit.
12 La Vía Campesina, “La Vía Campesina Call to Action 17 April 2010 - Join the International Day of Peasant Struggle,” Feb. 23, 2010, http://www.mstbrazil.org/
13 Organic Consumers Association, “Taxpayers Forced to Fund Monsanto's Poisoning of Third World,” Finland, Minnesota, http://www.organicconsumers.org/
14 Center for Food Security, “Update: CFS Fighting Monsanto in the Supreme Court,” May 11, 2010, http://truefoodnow.org/

[Frank Woolf]

Anyone interested may want to see more of the current situation here:

http://organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

[Frank Woolf]

I was shocked recently when I heard the Philippine government has approved the import of Bt Corn. Especially as not so long ago entire villages of people in the Philippines were sick from just living close to a field of BT corn.

The following is an update on independent tests of GMOs and shows that they are even more dangerous than we thought.


By Jeffrey Smith

The world’s leading consumer advocate promoting healthier, non-GMO choices

Dangerous Toxins From Genetically Modified Plants Found in Women and Fetuses

Watch this two minute video, Double Dipping Danger (http://vimeo.com/23976975), produced by Alex Bogusky, and then read about new evidence below showing even more harm from genetically modified foods. Click HERE to play (http://vimeo.com/23976975).


When U.S. regulators approved Monsanto’s genetically modified “Bt” corn, they knew it would add a deadly poison into our food supply. That’s what it was designed to do. The corn’s DNA is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces the Bt-toxin. It’s a pesticide; it breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.

But Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore up and down that it was only insects that would be hurt. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on all of us trusting corn-eating consumers.

A study just proved them wrong.

Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found the corn’s Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women.i (Specifically, the toxin was identified in 93% of 30 pregnant women, 80% of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67% of 39 non-pregnant women.) The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.

According to the UK Daily Mail, this study, which “appears to blow a hole in” safety claims, “has triggered calls for a ban on imports and a total overhaul of the safety regime for genetically modified (GM) crops and food.” Organizations from England to New Zealand are now calling for investigations and for GM crops to be halted due to the serious implications of this finding.

Links to allergies, auto-immune disease, and other disorders

There’s already plenty of evidence that the Bt-toxin produced in GM corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses. The fact that it flows through our blood supply, and that is passes through the placenta into fetuses, may help explain the rise in many disorders in the US since Bt crop varieties were first introduced in 1996.

In government-sponsored research in Italyii, mice fed Monsanto’s Bt corn showed a wide range of immune responses. Their elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, for example, are typically associated with allergies and infections. The mice had an increase in cytokines, which are associated with “allergic and inflammatory responses.” The specific cytokines (interleukins) that were elevated are also higher in humans who suffer from a wide range of disorders, from arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, to MS and cancer.

Elevated interleukins . . Associations
IL-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, various types of cancer (multiple myeloma and prostate cancer)

IL-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . Allergy, allergic rhinitis, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) MIP-1b Autoimmune disease and colitis.

IL-12p70 . . . . . . . . . .Inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis

The young mice in the study also had elevated T cells (gamma delta), which are increased in people with asthma, and in children with food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases. The Bt corn that was fed to these mice, MON 810, produced the same Bt-toxin that was found in the blood of women and fetuses.

When rats were fed another of Monsanto’s Bt corn varieties called MON 863, their immune systems were also activated, showing higher numbers of basophils, lymphocytes, and white blood cells. These can indicate possible allergies, infections, toxins, and various disease states including cancer. There were also signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys.iii

Natural Bt is dangerous

Farmers have used Bt-toxin from soil bacteria as a natural pesticide for years. But they spray it on plants, where it washes off and biodegrades in sunlight. The GM version is built-in; every plant cell has its own spray bottle. The toxin doesn’t wash off; it’s consumed. Furthermore, the plant-produced version of the poison is thousands of times more concentrated than the spray; is designed to be even more toxic; and has properties of known allergens—it actually fails the World Health Organization’s allergen screening tests.iv

The biotech companies ignore the substantial difference between the GM toxin and the natural bacteria version, and boldly claim that since the natural spray has a history of safe use in agriculture, it’s therefore OK to put the poison directly into our food. But even this claim of safe use of Bt spray ignores peer-reviewed studies showing just the opposite.

When natural Bt-toxin was fed to mice, they had tissue damage, immune responses as powerful as cholera toxinv, and even started reacting to other foods that were formerly harmless.vi Farm workers exposed to Bt also showed immune responses.vii The EPA’s own expert Scientific Advisory Panel said that these mouse and farm worker studies “suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.”viii But the EPA ignored the warnings. They also overlooked studiesix showing that about 500 people in Washington state and Vancouver showed allergic and flu-like symptoms when they were exposed to the spray when it was used to kill gypsy moths.

Bt cotton linked to human allergies, animal deaths


Indian farm workers are suffering from rashes and itching and other symptoms after coming into contact with Bt cotton.

Now thousands of Indian farm laborers are suffering from the same allergic and flu-like symptoms as those in the Pacific Northwest simply from handling genetically engineered cotton plants that produce Bt-toxin. According to reports and records from doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies, as well as numerous investigative reports and case studies, workers are struggling with constant itching and rashes; some take antihistamines every day in order to go to work.

It gets worse.


All thirteen buffalo of a small Indian village died after grazing for a single day on Bt cotton plants.

When they allow livestock to graze on the Bt cotton plants after harvest, thousands of sheep, goats, and buffalo died. Numerous others got sick. I visited one village where for seven to eight years they allowed their buffalo to graze on natural cotton plants without incident. But on January 3rd, 2008, they allowed their 13 buffalo to graze on Bt cotton plants for the first time. After just one day’s exposure, all died. The village also lost 26 goats and sheep.

One small study in Andhra Pradesh reported that all six sheep that grazed on Bt cotton plants died within a month, while the three controls fed natural cotton plants showed no adverse symptoms.

Living pesticide factories inside us?

Getting back to the Bt-toxin now circulating in the blood of North American adults and newborns—how did it get there? The study authors speculate that it was consumed in the normal diet of the Canadian middle class. They even suggest that the toxin may have come from eating meat from animals fed Bt corn—as most livestock are.

I’d like to speculate on another possible source. But I warn you, it’s not pretty.

The only human feeding study every published on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was conducted on Roundup Ready soybeans. Here’s their back story: Scientists found bacteria growing in a chemical waste dump near their factory, surviving the presence of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The herbicide normally kills bacteria, but this organism had some special gene that allowed it to survive. So Monsanto scientists figured, “Let’s put it into the food supply!”

By forcing that genes from that bacterium into soybean plants’ DNA, the plants then survive an otherwise deadly dose of Roundup herbicide—hence the name Roundup Ready.

In the human studyx, some of the subjects were found to have Roundup Ready gut bacteria! This means that sometime in the past, from eating one or more meals of GM soybeans, the gene that had been discovered in the chemical waste dump and forced into the soy, had transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside their intestines—and continued to function. That means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have dangerous GM proteins produced continuously inside of us.

When the results of the study emerged, the funding from the pro-GMO UK government mysteriously dried up, so they were not able to see if the same type of gene transfer happens with Bt genes from, say, corn chips. If it does, it means that eating Bt corn might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories—continually manufacturing Bt-toxin from within our digestive systems.

I don’t know of a test that can confirm that this is happening, but the Canada study may be showing the results—where Bt-toxins are found in the blood of a very high percentage of people.

If the “living pesticide factory” hypothesis is correct, we might speculate even further. Bt-toxin breaks open the stomach of insects. Could it similarly be damaging the integrity of our digestive tracts? The biotech companies insist that Bt-toxin doesn’t bind or interact with the intestinal walls of mammals, and therefore humans. But here too they ignore peer-reviewed published evidence showing that Bt-toxin does bind with mouse small intestines and with intestinal tissue from rhesus monkeys.xi In the former study, they even found “changes in the electrophysiological properties” of the organ after the Bt-toxin came into contact.xii

If Bt-toxins were causing leaky gut syndrome in newborns, the passage of undigested foods and toxins into the blood from the intestines could be devastating. Scientists speculate that it may lead to autoimmune diseases and food allergies. Furthermore, since the blood-brain barrier is not developed in newborns, toxins may enter the brain causing serious cognitive problems. Some healthcare practitioners and scientists are convinced that this is the apparent mechanism for autism.

Thus, if Bt genes were colonizing the bacteria living in the digestive tract of North Americans, we might see an increase in gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders—since 1996 when Bt crops came on the market. Physicians have told me that they indeed are seeing such an increase.

The discovery of Bt-toxin in our blood does not confirm all this speculation, but it does provide food for thought. And hopefully, that food is non-GMO.

Our Institute for Responsible Technology joins other organizations worldwide calling for an immediate ban on GM food crops, and the commencement of rigorous independent scientific research on the safety of GMOs in general, and Bt-toxin in particular.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, author of the #1 international bestselling book on GMOs, Seeds of Deception, and of Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. To avoid GMOs, which is the advice of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com (http://www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com).

i Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol (2011), doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670

ii Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A and Mengheri E. (2008). Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem, 16 November 2008

iii Seralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendomois J. 2007, “New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity”. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;52:596-602; and Vendômois, JS, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier and Gilles-Eric Séralini. 2009, “A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health” . International Journal of Biological Sciences 2009; 5(7):706-726

iv Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62. See also: G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, “Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens,” BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002): 8–19; H. P. J. M. Noteborn, “Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi,” Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05 (1998); and H. P. J. M. Noteborn et al, “Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes,” in Genetically modified foods: safety issues, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605, eds. K.H. Engel et al., (Washington, DC, 1995): 134–47.
Bt protein failed to break down quickly in a simulated digestive solution. In fact, it left fragments that were typically the size of allergens. The Bt also failed the heat stability test, and had shared 9–12 amino acid sequences of vitellogenin, an egg yolk allergen.

v Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice,” 1897–1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147–155; See also L. Moreno-Fierros, N. Garcia, R. Lopez-Revilla, R. I. Vazquez-Padron, “Intranasal, rectal and intraperitoneal immunization with protoxin Cry1Ac from Bacillus thuringiensis induces compartmentalized serum, intestinal, vaginal, and pulmonary immune responses in Balb/c mice,” Microbes and Infection 2 (2000): 885–90.

vi Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,” Scandanavian Journal ofImmunology 49 (1999): 578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000).

vii I.L. Bernstein et al, “Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides,” Environmental Health Perspectives 107, no. 7(1999): 575–582.

viii EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76.

ix Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993); and M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.

x Netherwood, T. (2004) “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract”. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 204-209.

xi Noteborn et al, “Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes,” 134–47.

xii Vazquez et al, “Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 binds to surface proteins in the mouse small intestine,” 54–58.

[Frank Woolf]

A recent update of the problems of GMOs

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/newsletters/07112011spilllingthebeans.html

[Frank Woolf]

(NaturalNews) Even as the veggie blame game is now under way across the EU, where a super resistant strain of e.coli is sickening patients and filling hospitals in Germany, virtually no one is talking about how e.coli could have magically become resistant to eight different classes of antibiotic drugs and then suddenly appeared in the food supply.

This particular e.coli variation is a member of the O104 strain, and O104 strains are almost never (normally) resistant to antibiotics. In order for them to acquire this resistance, they must be repeatedly exposed to antibiotics in order to provide the "mutation pressure" that nudges them toward complete drug immunity.

So if you're curious about the origins of such a strain, you can essentially reverse engineer the genetic code of the e.coli and determine fairly accurately which antibiotics it was exposed to during its development. This step has now been done (see below), and when you look at the genetic decoding of this O104 strain now threatening food consumers across the EU, a fascinating picture emerges of how it must have come into existence.

The genetic code reveals the history
When scientists at Germany's Robert Koch Institute decoded the genetic makeup of the O104 strain, they found it to be resistant to all the following classes and combinations of antibiotics:

• penicillins
• tetracycline
• nalidixic acid
• trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazol
• cephalosporins
• amoxicillin / clavulanic acid
• piperacillin-sulbactam
• piperacillin-tazobactam

In addition, this O104 strain posses an ability to produce special enzymes that give it what might be called "bacteria superpowers" known technically as ESBLs:

"Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBLs) are enzymes that can be produced by bacteria making them resistant to cephalosporins e.g. cefuroxime, cefotaxime and ceftazidime - which are the most widely used antibiotics in many hospitals," explains the Health Protection Agency in the UK (http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Infect...).

On top of that, this O104 strain possesses two genes -- TEM-1 and CTX-M-15 -- that "have been making doctors shudder since the 1990s," reports The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...). And why do they make doctors shudder? Because they're so deadly that many people infected with such bacteria experience critical organ failure and simply die.

Bioengineering a deadly superbug
So how, exactly, does a bacterial strain come into existence that's resistant to over a dozen antibiotics in eight different drug classes and features two deadly gene mutations plus ESBL enzyme capabilities?

There's really only one way this happens (and only one way) -- you have to expose this strain of e.coli to all eight classes of antibiotics drugs. Usually this isn't done at the same time, of course: You first expose it to penicillin and find the surviving colonies which are resistant to penicillin. You then take those surviving colonies and expose them to tetracycline. The surviving colonies are now resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline. You then expose them to a sulfa drug and collect the surviving colonies from that, and so on. It is a process of genetic selection done in a laboratory with a desired outcome. This is essentially how some bioweapons are engineered by the U.S. Army in its laboratory facility in Ft. Detrick, Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...).

Although the actual process is more complicated than this, the upshot is that creating a strain of e.coli that's resistant to eight classes of antibiotics requires repeated, sustained expose to those antibiotics. It is virtually impossible to imagine how this could happen all by itself in the natural world. For example, if this bacteria originated in the food (as we've been told), then where did it acquire all this antibiotic resistance given the fact that antibiotics are not used in vegetables?

When considering the genetic evidence that now confronts us, it is difficult to imagine how this could happen "in the wild." While resistance to a single antibiotic is common, the creation of a strain of e.coli that's resistant to eight different classes of antibiotics -- in combination -- simply defies the laws of genetic permutation and combination in the wild. Simply put, this superbug e.coli strain could not have been created in the wild. And that leaves only one explanation for where it really came from: the lab.

Engineered and then released into the wild
The evidence now points to this deadly strain of e.coli being engineered and then either being released into the food supply or somehow escaping from a lab and entering the food supply inadvertently. If you disagree with that conclusion -- and you're certainly welcome to -- then you are forced to conclude that this octobiotic superbug (immune to eight classes of antibiotics) developed randomly on its own... and that conclusion is far scarier than the "bioengineered" explanation because it means octobiotic superbugs can simply appear anywhere at any time without cause. That would be quite an exotic theory indeed.

My conclusion actually makes more sense: This strain of e.coli was almost certainly engineered and then released into the food supply for a specific purpose. What would that purpose be? It's obvious, I hope.

It's all problem, reaction, solution at work here. First cause a PROBLEM (a deadly strain of e.coli in the food supply). Then wait for the public REACTION (huge outcry as the population is terrorized by e.coli). In response to that, enact your desired SOLUTION (total control over the global food supply and the outlawing of raw sprouts, raw milk and raw vegetables).

That's what this is all about, of course. The FDA relied on the same phenomenon in the USA when pushing for its recent "Food Safety Modernization Act" which essentially outlaws small family organic farms unless they lick the boots of FDA regulators. The FDA was able to crush farm freedom in America by piggybacking on the widespread fear that followed e.coli outbreaks in the U.S. food supply. When people are afraid, remember, it's not difficult to get them to agree to almost any level of regulatory tyranny. And making people afraid of their food is a simple matter... a few government press releases emailed to the mainstream media news affiliates is all it takes.

First ban the natural medicine, then attack the food supply
Now, remember: All this is happening on the heels of the EU ban on medicinal herbs and nutritional supplements -- a ban that blatantly outlaws nutritional therapies that help keep people healthy and free from disease. Now that all these herbs and supplements are outlawed, the next step is to make people afraid of fresh food, too. That's because fresh vegetables are medicinal, and as long as the public has the right to buy fresh vegetables, they can always prevent disease.

But if you can make people AFRAID of fresh vegetables -- or even outlaw them altogether -- then you can force the entire population onto a diet of dead foods and processed foods that promote degenerative disease and bolster the profits of the powerful drug companies.

It's all part of the same agenda, you see: Keep people sick, deny them access to healing herbs and supplements, then profit from their suffering at the hands of the global drug cartels.

GMOs play a similar role in all this, of course: They're designed to contaminate the food supply with genetic code that causes widespread infertility among human beings. And those who are somehow able to reproduce after exposure to GMOs still suffer from degenerative disease that enriches the drug companies from "treatment."

Do you recall which country was targeted in this recent e.coli scare? Spain. Why Spain? You may recall that leaked cables from Wikileaks revealed that Spain resisted the introduction of GMOs into its agricultural system, even as the U.S. government covertly threatened political retaliation for its resistance. This false blaming of Spain for the e.coli deaths is probably retaliation for Spain's unwillingness to jump on the GMO bandwagon. (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G...)

That's the real story behind the economic devastation of Spain's vegetable farmers. It's one of the subplots being pursued alongside this e.coli superbug scheme.

Food as weapons of war - created by Big Pharma?
By the way, the most likely explanation of where this strain of e.coli was bioengineered is that the drug giants came up with it in their own labs. Who else has access to all the antibiotics and equipment needed to manage the targeted mutations of potentially thousands of e.coli colonies? The drug companies are uniquely positioned to both carry out this plot and profit from it. In other words, they have the means and the motive to engage in precisely such actions.

Aside from the drug companies, perhaps only the infectious disease regulators themselves have this kind of laboratory capacity. The CDC, for example, could probably pull this off if they really wanted to.

The proof that somebody bioengineered this e.coli strain is written right in the DNA of the bacteria. That's forensic evidence, and what it reveals cannot be denied. This strain underwent repeated and prolonged exposure to eight different classes of antibiotics, and then it somehow managed to appear in the food supply. How do you get to that if not through a well-planned scheme carried out by rogue scientists? There is no such thing as "spontaneous mutation" into a strain that is resistant to the top eight classes of brand-name antibiotic drugs being sold by Big Pharma today. Such mutations have to be deliberate.

Once again, if you disagree with this assessment, then what you're saying is that NO, it wasn't done deliberately... it happened accidentally! And again, I'm saying that's even scarier! Because that means the antibiotic contamination of our world is now at such an extreme level of overkill that a strain of e.coli in the wild can be saturated with eight different classes of antibiotics to the point where it naturally develops into its own deadly superbug. If that's what people believe, then that's almost a scarier theory than the bioengineering explanation!

A new era has begun: Bioweapons in your food
But in either case -- no matter what you believe -- the simple truth is that the world is now facing a new era of global superbug strains of bacteria that can't be treated with any known pharmaceutical. They can all, of course, be readily killed with colloidal silver, which is exactly why the FDA and world health regulators have viciously attacked colloidal silver companies all these years: They can't have the public getting its hands on natural antibiotics that really work, you see. That would defeat the whole purpose of making everybody sick in the first place.

In fact, these strains of e.coli superbugs can be quite readily treated with a combination of natural full-spectrum antibiotics from plants such as garlic, ginger, onions and medicinal herbs. On top of that, probiotics can help balance the flora of the digestive tract and "crowd out" the deadly e.coli that might happen by. A healthy immune system and well-functioning digestive tract can fight off an e.coli superbug infection, but that's yet another fact the medical community doesn't want you to know. They much prefer you to remain a helpless victim lying in the hospital, waiting to die, with no options available to you. That's "modern medicine" for ya. They cause the problems that they claim to treat, and then they won't even treat you with anything that works in the first place.

Nearly all the deaths now attributable to this e.coli outbreak are easily and readily avoidable. These are deaths of ignorance. But even more, they may also be deaths from a new era of food-based bioweapons unleashed by either a group of mad scientists or an agenda-driven institution that has declared war on the human population.

Additional developments on this e.coli outbreak
• 22 fatalities have so far been reported, with 2,153 people now sickened and possibly facing kidney failure.

• An agricultural ministry in Germany said that even though they now know the source of the outbreak is a German sprout farm, they are still not lifting their warnings for people to avoid eating tomatoes and lettuce. In other words, keep the people afraid!

• "The German variant of E coli, known as O104, is a hybrid of the strains that can cause bloody diarrhoea and kidney damage called 'hemolytic uremic syndrome'." (http://www.independent.ie/world-new...)

• A total of ten European nations have reported outbreaks of this e.coli strain, mostly from people who had visited northern Germany.

• The following story is in German, and it hints that the e.coli outbreak might have been a terrorist attack (http://www.aerztezeitung.de/medizin...). Yeah, a terrorist attack by the drug companies upon innocent people, as usual…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032622_ecoli_bioengineering.html#ixzz1S2sHLsYM

[Frank Woolf]

EU Regulators and Monsanto Exposed for Hiding Glyphosate Toxicity
The European Commission approved glyphosate knowing, as Monsanto did, that it causes birth defects, while the public were kept in the dark, the herbicide must now be banned Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Please forward widely to your political representatives and demand a worldwide ban on glyphosate herbicides

A damning report co-authored by an international group of scientists and researchers for non-government organisation Open Earth Source (OES) reveals that studies from industry including those from Monsanto since the 1990s showed glyphosate caused birth defects and the European Commission approved the herbicide in full knowledge of those finding [1].

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide and over a hundred other commercial formulations. It is the cause of great concern as evidence of its harmful effects keep piling up from independent scientific studies in recent years, including endocrine disruption, DNA damage, reproductive and developmental toxicities, neurotoxicity, cancer, and birth defects (see [2] Glyphosate Toxic and Roundup Worse, SiS 26; [3] Death by Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup, SiS 42; [4] Ban Glyphosate Herbicide Now. SiS 43; [5] Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects, SiS 48).

Monsanto's Roundup formulation is the biggest selling herbicide in the world, and its use has dramatically increased since the company introduced glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops such as RR (Roundup Ready) soybean. Today, almost 80 percent of the world's soy production takes place in the US, Brazil and Argentina, and in 2009, RR soybean accounted for 91 percent, 99 percent and 71 percent respectively of total soybean acreage in those countries. Since 1997, RR soy production has increased from 5 to 30 million hectares of land in the US alone [1]. Soybeans have been found to contain glyphosate residues up to 10 times as high as the doses that caused foetal malformations in chick and frog embryos.

With such widespread use of the herbicide, and the EU considering approval of GM crops tolerant to glyphosate for cultivation in Europe, there is an urgent need for a proper review of the herbicide, which is in line with the more stringent new EU pesticide regulation that came into force in June 2011. Indeed, just such a review was due to take place in 2012. But shortly after the EC was notified of the latest research on glyphosate causing birth defects (which the EC dismissed), it delayed the review on glyphosate and 38 other dangerous pesticides to 2015 [1]. Furthermore, the 2010 review will be under the old, less stringent regulations. The official reason for the delay is that they have `too much workload'. This means that the safety of glyphosate may not be reviewed under the new regulations until 2030.

The review delay is being challenged in a lawsuit brought against the EC by Pesticides Action Network Europe and Greenpeace. The co-authors of the OES report are also calling on the EC to conduct a prompt review without delay, and to withdraw glyphosate and Roundup from the market.

Evidence of birth defects from industry and independent studies
The OES report reveals that studies carried out by industry in the 1990s showed embryonic lethality and birth defects in laboratory animals, including dilation of the heart in rabbits at low doses of glyphosate. Higher doses were shown to cause defects in independent studies as far back as 1980.

Monsanto has responded by denying its own findings [6]: "Regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world agree that glyphosate does not cause adverse reproductive effects in adult animals or birth defects in offspring of these adults exposed to glyphosate, even at doses far higher than relevant environmental or occupational exposures."

However, the `independent experts' cited by Monsanto were mired in conflicts of interests, both financial and professional, and rely almost entirely on studies carried out by industry [1].

Independent studies have revealed links to cancer, genetic damage and endocrine disruption, as well as developmental defects, for example, craniofacial and vertebrae abnormalities in rats [7] as well as craniofacial and mouth deformities, eye abnormalities and bent, curved tails in frog tadpoles [8]. The most recent study by Carrasco and colleagues found a mechanistic link between glyphosate and abnormal retinoic acid signalling in embryonic development [5, 9]

Astonishingly, these and numerous other studies cited by the OES report were dismissed by the European Commission (EC) and the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL), which is responsible for liaising between industry and the EC. BVL's conclusion, communicated to the EC via Germany's 1998 `draft assessment report' (DAR), was ``no evidence of teratogenicity" for glyphosate.

Draft assessment report contained damning evidence
Germany's 1998 DAR was crucial for glyphosate gaining current EU approval. Despite concluding from industry's dossier of studies that "glyphosate does not cause teratogenicity", the report immediately went on to quality its conclusion by pointing out that higher doses of glyphosate caused "reduced ossification and a higher incidence of skeletal and/or visceral [internal organs] anomalies" in foetuses of rats and rabbits. It also added that the industry studies on glyphosate given at high doses showed reduced number of viable foetuses produced by rats and rabbits, as consistent with increased birth defects. The skeletal anomalies found in those early industry studies are also consistent with the recent findings reported by Carrasco and colleagues [5, 9]. However, these abnormalities were dismissed on the spurious grounds that the high doses poisoned the mother (maternally toxic doses), and hence deemed irrelevant to human risk assessment, as poisoning the mother with any substance can affect the foetus and lead to birth defects. This absurd assumption is indeed contested in the independent scientific literature, and much debated even within industry.

A history of manipulation and near-deception by German and EU regulators
As evident from Germany's 1998 DAR, Germany manipulated scientific evidence using various ploys bothering on deceit, and with a total disregard of the precautionary principle.

The glyphosate-treated animals in studies submitted by industry practically all showed effects of treatment compared with untreated animals, and at doses as low as 20 mg/kg body weight. So much so that UK's Pesticide Safety Directorate (PSD), which commented on the data, supports the teratogenicity of glyphosate [1]: "Taken in isolation, none of the findings in these rabbit teratology studies would be clearly of concern. However, overall there is an indication of a pattern."

Germany on the other hand, resorted to including `historical control groups' in other (irrelevant) unpublished studies, which had the effect of increasing the variation, and hence cancelling out any statistical significance in the actual experiments submitted by industry. UK's PSD ended by asking Germany to make available the historical control data, but it remains unclear whether PSD ever saw the data, or if it did, how it responded. And to this day, the historical control data are hidden from the public.

As the OES report commented [1]: "The use of historical rather than concurrent controls adds variables to an experiment that aims to control variables, obscures the teratogenic effects of glyphosate, and biases any conclusion. That is why the use of historical control data is controversial. The practice should not be allowed in evaluating animal toxicological and other studies for pesticide approvals."

Valid controls for an experiment are animals of the same genetic strain and age, reared in the same environment and studied at the same time as the treated animals. Furthermore, "the manner in which the animals are examined and evaluated, and the data recorded, must be the same."

The OES report went on to state: "If such practices [of using historical controls] were uncovered in an independent scientific study, they could be considered scientific fraud."

In summary, the industry and regulators appeared to have colluded in a saga of manipulating scientific evidence in approving glyphosate.

Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980s that glyphosate causes birth defects in animals at high concentrations
Industry has known since 1993 that those effects could also occur at low to mid doses
The German government has known that glyphosate causes birth defects since at least 1998, the year it submitted its DAR on glyphosate to the EC
The EC's expert scientific review panel has known since 1999 that glyphosate causes birth defects
The EC has known that glyphosate causes birth defects since 2002, the year that its Directorate General of SANCO (Health and Consumer Protection) published the final review report for the current approval of glyphosate.
Throughout all that time, the public have been kept in the dark, and the work of independent scientists drawing attention to the teratogenic effects of glyphosate and Roundup were ignored, dismissed, or otherwise denigrated.

The LOAEL (lowest observable adverse effects level) of glyphosate was similarly identified by Germany to be 60 mg/kg body weight/day, at least 3 times higher than indicated by the industry data through a sleight of hand that considered only `chronic exposure' in the `most sensitive species' taken to be the rat; while independent studies indicated LOAEL as low as 5 mg/kg body weight for endocrine disruption and liver damage in rats. The LOAEL is used to set acceptable daily intake (ADI), which is 1/100 of the LOAEL. Consequently, the current ADI of 0.6 mg/kg/day is at least 10 times higher than warranted by data existing at the time the level was set.

Bad science shielded by industry's own questionable guidelines and standards
In addition to outright manipulation of scientific evidence, industry has erected an effective shield for its bad science under the guise of `Good Laboratory Practices' (GLP) guidelines, set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a development and trade, not scientific, organisation. The GLP guidelines have already been strongly criticised in a paper [10] co-authored by 30 scientists who point out that the GLP "specifies nothing about the quality of the research design, the skills of the technicians, the sensitivity of the assays, or whether the methods employed are current or out-of-date." The EC and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) both accept the GLP guidelines and independent research that does not conform can be ignored for assessment purposes. Thus, the research of Carrasco's team and other independent studies showing harm from glyphosate or Roundup were dismissed on grounds that the testing systems are "unvalidated" and the studies "inappropriate and irrelevant for human health risk assessment purposes" (because they are not carried out on approved animals such as rats, mice and dogs, for example), in other words, they are not in accordance with GLP. As the OES report remarks [1], this "raises the question: why do governments fund scientific research if they ignore its findings in almost every risk assessment?"

In fact, GLP toxicity studies have been criticised for using out of date protocols with very high doses at near poisoning levels that may have little relevance to real world exposure levels, and test animals are typically killed before old age, masking most developing diseases. In short, GLP tests use protocols that can rarely find toxicity.

A comparison of NOAELs (no observable adverse effects levels) from industry and independent tests on dozens of chemicals found that in every case, independent studies detected important toxic effects at levels well below those that industry claimed to be safe. Yet regulators ignore the independent data in favour of those from industry because they comply with the OECD GLP guidelines. Their rejection of the recent findings of Carrasco's team is indefensible but for the rigid adherence to the GLP guidelines, as the OES report points out at length (see also [5]).

Furthermore, the OECD set rigid and scientifically incorrect criteria regarding dose-response in toxicological tests. They fail to take into account the fact that endocrine disrupting and other effects are often stronger at low dose than at high dose, which invalidates the assumption that there is a safe dose below which there is no significant toxicity.

The new EU pesticide regulation has the potential to end the tyranny of GLP by insisting on peer-reviewed independent scientific studies in pesticide assessments. However, the new regulation obliges industry to do its own scientific literature search in preparing a pesticide dossier, thus giving industry full control of the studies it selects for inclusion and may well reinforce the tyranny of the GLP.

Human evidence of health concerns is mounting
Due to obvious restrictions of experiments on humans, human data of glyphosate toxicity is difficult to obtain in a laboratory setting. There are, however, results obtained from human cell lines. One such experiment performed in 2009 by French scientist Giles-Eric Séralini and colleagues found that Roundup caused total cell death in umbilical, embryonic and placental cells within 24 hours [3, 11].

Further, with the widespread use of glyphosate in countries such as Argentina and Canada, evidence of harm to humans is now growing. A local Argentinean government report documented tripling in numbers of childhood cancers from 2000 to 2009, and quadrupling of birth defects in agrochemical use zones (ref see [12] Argentina's Roundup Human Tragedy, SiS 48). Carrasco noted in his study that [9] "The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy."

An epidemiological study in Ontario, Canada, also found high levels of premature births and miscarriages in female members of farming families that used pesticides, including glyphosate.

BVL's response to those problems was that they are irrelevant to the situation in Europe, even as plans to grow glyphosate-tolerant crops are afoot: "Even if there were indications for an increase in malformations because of extensive exposure to pesticides in South America, the state authorities in these countries would be responsible to initiate more in-depth investigations. Taking into account the very different application conditions and the uncertainties with regard to the plant protection products and human exposure, such findings would not automatically give rise to concern about the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides in Europe."

Additional concerns
A recent report released by a senior US scientist Dr Don Huber, Professor Emeritus, Purdue University, warned of a novel pathogen associated with glyphosate tolerant GM crops (see [13] Emergency! Pathogen New to Science Found in Roundup Ready GM Crops?). A leaked letter written by him to the USDA expressed deep concern for this pathogen that was highly enriched in transgenic crops, and apparently associated with devastating crops diseases and high rates of infertility and miscarriages in animals. This is a novel concern that adds to the urgency with which glyphosate and GM agriculture needs to be reviewed by the EU.

Conclusion & recommendation
The authors of the OES report conclude that "the existing approval of glyphosate and Roundup is out of date and scientifically unsupportable." They recommend the immediate withdrawal of glyphosate until a new review is performed with a full range of up-to-date tests that are independently reviewed and publicly available.

We fully agree with their conclusion and recommendation.

[Frank Woolf]

NaturalNews May 25, 2011
A landmark new study out of Canada exposes yet another lie propagated by the biotechnology industry, this time blowing a hole in the false claim that a certain genetic pesticide used in the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) crops does not end up in the human body upon consumption. Researchers from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Can., have proven that Bt toxin, which is used in GM corn and other crops, definitively makes its way into the blood supply, contrary to what Big Bio claims -- and this toxin was found in the bloodstreams of 93 percent of pregnant women tested.

Published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the study explains that Bt toxin enters the body not only through direct consumption of GMOs, but also from consumption of meat, milk and eggs from animals whose feed contains GMOs. Among all women tested, 80 percent of the pregnant group tested positive for Bt toxin in their babies' umbilical cords, and 69 percent of non-pregnant women tested positive for Bt toxin.

The only reason many countries even approved GM crops in the first place was because they were told that GM crops were no different than conventional crops. The biotechnology industry has purported for years that the alterations and chemicals used in GM crop cultivation pose no risk whatsoever to human health, and that any GM substances that remain in food are broken down in the digestive system. Now that it has been revealed that such claims are complete fabrications, many groups are urging governments to pull GMOs from their food supplies.

"This research is a major surprise as it shows that the Bt proteins have survived the human digestive system and passed into the blood supply -- something that regulators said could not happen," said Pete Riley from GM Freeze, an alliance of organizations united against GMOs. "Regulators need to urgently reassess their opinions, and the EU should use the safeguard clauses in the regulations to prevent any further GM Bt crops being cultivated or imported for animal feed or food until the potential health implications have been fully evaluated."

Most of the studies that have been used to validate the safety of GMOs have been conducted by the companies that created them in the first place, so they are hardly a credible source for reliable safety data. Governments in North and South America, as well as throughout Europe, have essentially welcomed GMOs into the food supply based on flimsy reassurances rather than sound science.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032510_unborn_babies_GMOs.html#ixzz1S2uvlQWd

[Frank Woolf]

Kaitlyn Moore NaturalNews May 12, 2011
Soy, once touted as a medical miracle, has been outed. Ninety-one percent of the soy we consume is tainted by the filth of the GMO machine, literally the most quietly kept epidemic of our lifetime. Soy makes up a large portion of the diet for the chickens, pigs, and cows some of us eat. Even the vegetarian/vegan community is exposed as a number of meat substitutes list soy as a main ingredient. Soy and soybean oil have wiggled their way into a wide array of processed foods including salad dressings, peanut butter, tamari, mayonnaise, crackers, baby formula, baked good mixes, textured vegetable protein, and the list goes on. So unless you are eating an organic version of any of the above, there is a good chance you are exposing yourself to GMO soy.

Genetically engineered crops are destroying the environment, the health of indigenous communities, and ultimately our health as end of the chain consumers. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has reported a number of studies. Their results? Frightening. Think major issues like infertility (http://www.responsibletechnology.or...), immune problems, accelerated aging, and even changes in the cellular structure of major organs (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/). Also, as a result of the antibiotic resistant genes within GE food, they are the highly suspected culprits behind the new "superbug." The animals involved in the studies ended up deformed, sterile, and dead.

Children are the most susceptible to these harmful effect, since they are constantly in a state of high growth; parents should take care. GMO foods, and especially soy, have been tied to an increase in allergies, asthma, and a propensity to get antibiotic resistant infections.

None of this would surprise any of the individuals in various South America countries that live near GM crops. South America is the world's largest provider of soy (http://www.naturalnews.com/031382_G...).

A recent story in the UK Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...) revealed that the herbicides used on GM soy are so toxic that direct contact often results in severe illness and sometimes death. Petrona Villasboa is one of those that has faced direct loss. Her son was accidenatlly sprayed by one of the machines that are often spraying Monsanto's Roundup on the surrounding crops. Silvino Talavera died that same day - and it was a horrible death (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...). That's not all - Non GMO farmers are being displaced, and those that stay run a calculated risk. Mothers living close to GM farmland are twice as likely to have a fetus with a birth deformity.

The industry doesn't want this information out there. Monsanto provides over 90 percent of GMO soy seeds and related herbicides to farmers worldwide (http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2011...).

Agent Orange was one of Monsanto's first herbicides and the resulting effect to U.S soldiers and Vietnamese citizens was reprehensible( http://www.organicconsumers.org/mon...).

Scientist who push to hard to get a widespread scientific inquiry about the devastating effects of GE foods have had subtle and not-so-subtle pressure applied and been forced to back off their findings (http://www.responsibletechnology.or...).

Just as efforts are underway to assist these farmers in seeing the benefits of growing organic food as a means of survival and commerce, the end consumer must also make a change. Soy purchases must be viewed in a whole new light. The best way to protect your family from these potential harmful effects is to remove it from your diet or stick to strictly organic soy and organic processed foods.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032370_GM_soy_children.html#ixzz1S2vjYdBc

[Frank Woolf]

Wikileaks cable reveals U.S. conspired to retaliate against European nations if they resisted GMOs

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html#ixzz1S3Fdz900

[Frank Woolf]

February 23, 2011
by Mike Adams
Editor of NaturalNews.com


In a shocking warning letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, a highly experienced, ex-military pathogen researcher warns that the use of Roundup via GMO crops is resulting in the emergence of a deadly new pathogen -- previously unknown to science -- that's causing widespread spontaneous abortions among cattle. The pathogen appears in high concentrations among even non-GMO crops that are "managed" through the use of glyphosate (Roundup) for weed control.

The letter is authored by COL (Retired) Don M. Huber, a former Emeritus Professor at Purdue University. Huber was also the coordinator at the American Phytopathological Society, an organization that studies plant diseases and pathogens. Huber also sat on the committee for Emerging Diseases and Pathogens, chaired by an Agriculture Research Service (USDA) employee from Fort Detrick, Maryland.

Fort Detrick, you may remember, is also where the U.S. military conducts much of its biological warfare research through its United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._A...). A few years ago, deadly pathogens "went missing" from this lab (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...).

Huber, in other words, is not just some ranting civilian. He's someone who has worked around pathogens for many decades and whose warnings about pathogenic threats must be taken seriously. In his letter, Huber warns about a new pathogen, unknown to science, "...that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn -- suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup."

This pathogen appears to be link to widespread spontaneous abortions among cattle. As Huber explains, "450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers ...experienced spontaneous abortions."

That's a spontaneous abortion rate of 45 percent!

Huber goes on to say that this pathogen "...could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. ...This new organism may already be responsible for significant harm..."

Huber's letter was made available to Tom Vilsack well before the USDA's recent decision to deregulate GE alfalfa (http://www.naturalnews.com/031139_G...), meaning that the USDA deregulated GE alfalfa even after being made aware of this severe threat to human and animal health.

The threat to human health
As Huber explains, this previously unknown pathogen causes spontaneous abortions and infertility. "Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting."

That alone means this pathogen may be a huge threat to ranchers and cattle operations, but there's more to this story: The HUMAN threat.

"[The pathogen] is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas," says Huber.

Guess where soybean meal is used? Throughout the processed food supply. Both soybean meal and GMO corn are widely used in thousands of foods found in grocery stores and even health food stores like Whole Foods. This means human consumers are almost certainly being exposed to this pathogen through the food supply right now, as there are often mistakes in food processing that don't always kill the pathogens through cooking or pasteurization.

Is this part of the explanation behind human spontaneous abortions and rising rates of infertility?

More frighteningly, is this all part of a population control agenda being pursued by the U.S. government through the USDA? Given the threat that this pathogen presents to both human and animal life, why would the USDA deregulate so many Roundup Ready GMO crops unless it actually wanted to see more infertility and spontaneous abortions taking place?

Pathogen also threatens plant life
It's not just animals and humans that are threatened by this mysterious and deadly pathogen, by the way. Crops are also threatened by it.

"The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income -- sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss' wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines)."

Did you read that carefully? The pathogen caused by the use of Roundup and GMO crops drives down crop yields through plant disease! And yet, the whole selling point behind GMOs was supposed to be "increased yields!" That's why farmers have been strong-armed into using GMOs in the first place. And yet, in reality, what we see are GMO crop failures, not increased yields. See this article by Jeffrey Smith for more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031138_M...

Huber isn't the only one warning about the toxic effects of Roundup on life, by the way. A paper published in Chemical Research in Toxicology also concluded that Roundup causes birth defects in frogs and chickens: Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021...)

An emergency halt to all GMOs
Huber's letter drives home the most important point in all this: We need to STOP GMOs right now, at least until more research can be conducted. As Huber states:

"[We request] an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal / predisposing relationship with glyphosate and / or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health. It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."

But rather than stopping GMOs, the USDA has approved three new GE crops in just the last several weeks! The USDA, it seems, has decided to risk the sustainability of life on our planet -- plant life, animal life and even human life. The USDA is now becoming as dangerous as the FDA!

The USDA, through its recent decisions, is without question a threat to life on Earth.

The coming ecological catastrophe
Mark my words, friends: We are facing dark times ahead, thanks in part to these reckless actions being taken by the USDA. We are facing the likelihood of widespread crop failures which will obviously lead to food riots and starvation. We're rolling the dice on the future of life on Earth, placing our bets on the profits of the biotech industry while violating the laws of nature.

Once these deadly pathogens are out in the wild, there's no recapturing them. I predict that, in the years ahead, GMOs will cause an ecological catastrophe that results in widespread suffering and death. Everybody is threatened by GMOs - cattle ranchers, dairy owners, pets, children, adults and even the crops themselves. Nothing is safe from the scourge of death and destruction now being unleashed upon our world by these evil corporations (http://www.naturalnews.com/030967_M...) working in conspiracy with corrupt, criminal-minded government all across the world -- governments that are actively conspiring against their own people to unleash spontaneous abortions, infertility and eventual starvation.

Make no mistake, all of you who read NaturalNews: Your government is conspiring with an industry of death to roll out GMOs that will result in abortions, suffering, starvation and ecological catastrophe. And they are doing this under the label of "science," claiming that any restrictions of GMOs would be "unscientific." (http://www.naturalnews.com/031093_u...)

They are claiming that GMOs will prevent starvation and "feed the world!" But the evidence reveals the far darker truth behind the scheme: It's really about poisoning the world, reducing the population, and seizing control over the production and distribution of food.

Why aren't people protesting against GMOs?
The truth about this matter is now becoming increasingly apparent to nearly everyone. But I have a question: When will the people take to the streets to protest this?

Don't you find it interesting that people in places like Madison, Wisconsin will protest threats to their incomes, but virtually nobody takes to the streets to protest GMOs and other threats to sustainable life on our planet? Why aren't the people up in arms over GMOs, marching in front of the USDA offices and demanding the arrest and prosecution of people like Tom Vilsack who have emerged as enemies of life?

It really makes you wonder where peoples' priorities are these days. While they're busy protesting their paycheck in Madison, the federal government is secretly plotting behind their backs to abort their fetuses, starve their children, contaminate their crops and destroy their ranch animals. This is the definition of EVIL, folks. The dark era of "Satanic government" is upon us, and now they're plotting with the biotech industry to literally destroy life on our planet.

You need to understand, this is no longer about mere profits or political power. This is an agenda of death now being pursued by the USDA. Government-sponsored pestilence. The four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and all that. This is downright Biblical in proportion because now we're talking about threats to life across the planet.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031473_GMOs_pathogens.html#ixzz1S3GkV8dL